ChatterBank4 mins ago
Climate Change
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who are the "they" that haven't told you such "mind-blowing" (obvious) points?
All of this is known to Climate Scientists, and is not hidden from the public either. Interesting, however, that the speaker doesn't quite put those facts in context. For example, the motion of the Earth does have an impact on the Earth's climate, but the relevant cycles last for periods of tens of thousands of years, so have no bearing at all on climate cycles over a few hundred years or so. Mentioning them is clearly sensible for the bigger context of long-term climate trends, but it's misleading to include them in a discussion on recent climate change.
With respect to the "no net warming in the 21st Century", this is also misleading. Firstly, that "hiatus" has already stopped, and the last four years have seen an apparent resumption of the trend for warming -- in particular, the last four years have been the hottest on record (since 1880). Secondly, the apparent pause was likely to have been partially related to El Nino, which magnified the temperatures in 1998 and therefore made the next decade or so look flat(ter) by comparison. Thirdly, there is now doubt that the hiatus even happened: see, for example, http://
Finally, so what? Just because one year, or even a decade or so, doesn't show a marked increase in temperature, doesn't undermine longer-term trends:
https:/
I should also point out that "Prager University" is not a university, in any sense of the word, and is better thought of as a conservative propaganda channel. A reasonable and balanced source it is not.
I could debunk the remainder of the claims in the video, most of which are based on true statements that are then taken wildly out of context, but the simple fact is this: the climate is changing, and human activity is a major driving factor in recent trends. The debate on this point is very much over, as a meaningful scientific exercise.
Seriously: stop doing your science research by looking at YouTube vids.
All of this is known to Climate Scientists, and is not hidden from the public either. Interesting, however, that the speaker doesn't quite put those facts in context. For example, the motion of the Earth does have an impact on the Earth's climate, but the relevant cycles last for periods of tens of thousands of years, so have no bearing at all on climate cycles over a few hundred years or so. Mentioning them is clearly sensible for the bigger context of long-term climate trends, but it's misleading to include them in a discussion on recent climate change.
With respect to the "no net warming in the 21st Century", this is also misleading. Firstly, that "hiatus" has already stopped, and the last four years have seen an apparent resumption of the trend for warming -- in particular, the last four years have been the hottest on record (since 1880). Secondly, the apparent pause was likely to have been partially related to El Nino, which magnified the temperatures in 1998 and therefore made the next decade or so look flat(ter) by comparison. Thirdly, there is now doubt that the hiatus even happened: see, for example, http://
Finally, so what? Just because one year, or even a decade or so, doesn't show a marked increase in temperature, doesn't undermine longer-term trends:
https:/
I should also point out that "Prager University" is not a university, in any sense of the word, and is better thought of as a conservative propaganda channel. A reasonable and balanced source it is not.
I could debunk the remainder of the claims in the video, most of which are based on true statements that are then taken wildly out of context, but the simple fact is this: the climate is changing, and human activity is a major driving factor in recent trends. The debate on this point is very much over, as a meaningful scientific exercise.
Seriously: stop doing your science research by looking at YouTube vids.
I'm not familiar with the Roman Warm Period, but it's worth noting that its counterpart, the Medieval Warm Period, was a period of warming that occurred at what is essentially a far slower rate of growth than the equivalent today. I should imagine that the same is true of the Roman one.
The simple fact is that modern warming is occurring at a far greater rate than is usual for natural variation. This isn't controversial, no matter what armchair sceptics might say.
The simple fact is that modern warming is occurring at a far greater rate than is usual for natural variation. This isn't controversial, no matter what armchair sceptics might say.
"But [a probably invalid comparison] suited my purpose, perhaps. Done Aristotle on Rhetoric?"
No, I have not.
I mean, the technical point is that it *is* an invalid comparison, because the motion of Halley's Comet is, to all intents and purposes, fully deterministic, whereas weather is a chaotic system.
No, I have not.
I mean, the technical point is that it *is* an invalid comparison, because the motion of Halley's Comet is, to all intents and purposes, fully deterministic, whereas weather is a chaotic system.
"Me neither" (as our American cousins say) on Aristotle, Jim. Only know a few of his criricisms of Plato's Republic.
But if one set of predictions is "deterministic" while the other is not it kind of supports my "rhetorical" point, doesn't it?
Why can we be so certain, or have such a wide "consensus" on fuzzy predictions?
PS: not the same question as "...but what if they're right?". Nor is it the same question is "...but how much will it cost all of us [African peasants included] if they're wrong?".
But if one set of predictions is "deterministic" while the other is not it kind of supports my "rhetorical" point, doesn't it?
Why can we be so certain, or have such a wide "consensus" on fuzzy predictions?
PS: not the same question as "...but what if they're right?". Nor is it the same question is "...but how much will it cost all of us [African peasants included] if they're wrong?".
Too tired to think now, I'll prepare a longer answer in the morning if you are interested.
The short answer, though, is that there is no longer any (meaningful) controversy with the big picture -- that is, that human activity is having an effect on our climate -- with the finer details, as in the nature and scale of that effect. A physics analogy might be the big-picture Standard Model (universally accepted) as opposed to the finer details of certain predictions within it (not always so universal, either because of disagreement between groups, human error, or improving techniques and resources over time).
The short answer, though, is that there is no longer any (meaningful) controversy with the big picture -- that is, that human activity is having an effect on our climate -- with the finer details, as in the nature and scale of that effect. A physics analogy might be the big-picture Standard Model (universally accepted) as opposed to the finer details of certain predictions within it (not always so universal, either because of disagreement between groups, human error, or improving techniques and resources over time).
Latest Posts
Crosswords11 mins ago
Film, Media & TV42 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles64 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |